reschedule_interview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but the description reveals preview behavior and the confirm flag. However, it does not disclose side effects on the original interview, required permissions, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is remarkably concise with two sentences, front-loading the action. However, the phrase 'and writes are enabled' is ambiguous, slightly reducing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description fails to explain what the body contains, what a preview yields, or the overall mutation effect. Significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only clarifies the confirm parameter, leaving interview_id and the nested body object undefined. Insufficient compensation for low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Reschedule' and the resource 'interview', distinguishing it from sibling tools like schedule_interview and cancel_interview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage via the preview vs. write behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., interview must be scheduled).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.